Like others, I await the possible Joe Biden-Donald Trump election rematch with limited excitement. But is anyone else pointing out the extraordinary valuation opportunity developing here? Only twice in history have two candidates with presidential experience matched. The first was the Grover Cleveland-Benjamin Harrison race in 1892; Cleveland won and became our only-term chief. 1912 saw President Howard Taft and former President Theodore Roosevelt lose to Woodrow Wilson.
So today we not only have campaign promises, but also actual business performance to consider. And unlike 1892 and 1912, we have another guide to reference: presidential approval ratings. The Gallup poll surveys public opinion about presidents since the 1930s. recently noted Trump actually has superior approval numbers than Biden in the third year of his first term. Jimmy Carter was worse off on his own.
What do we make of all this? Will we get past the “spoiled rich kid” and “old geezer” stereotypes and examine his work history? We live in the age of super information. Facts that once took hours to uncover in the public library (if they can be found at all) can now be quickly uncovered online.
But electronic repositories are useless if we don’t look after them.
—Tom Gregg, Niles
Why do people support Trump?
The reasons why people support former President Donald Trump are pretty consistent. First, the people want a warrior; The former president certainly does, but he’s usually just fighting for himself. Then come the successes in appointing judges and magistrates and implementing tax cuts. The list of justices, including Supreme Court justices, was influenced by a conservative legal think tank. US Senator Mitch McConnell had them confirmed. This has been his primary goal since the Robert Bork hearings. The tax cuts were made possible by House Speaker Paul Ryan. This was his main goal. These two men, not the president, were almost solely responsible for these successes. Any Republican president would have achieved the same results.
The last reason is migration and border. The former president blocked immigration reform, first while president and now by opposing bipartisan efforts in the Senate. Trump is using this issue to infuriate his supporters. It is too valuable a political tool to solve or reduce the problem.
What is most difficult to understand is the overwhelming support from evangelicals. The rationale for this is that God uses flawed humans, which seems to make light of Trump’s moral flaws. He spreads hatred and anger and does not follow the teachings of the New Testament. The belief of some of his followers that he was sent by God to be their protector and savior is astonishing. He’s the exact opposite.
How can Christians follow such a hateful, deceitful and lawless man?
—Stephen Whitlock, McPherson, Kansas
Blocking border legislation
There is a saying: “There is no limit to what can be achieved, no matter who gets the credit.” The current proposal for the southern border is a prime example.
Republican U.S. Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma is part of a bipartisan group working on a workable package and trying to pass it; Something Donald Trump, the MAGA crowd, the GOP, and the nation are focused on. Since a workable agreement was possible, some of Lankford’s voters wanted to stall the agreement. Why can’t they work together and get this done? The reason is clear. They do not want the ruling party to take any credit for something that needs to be done now for the overall good of the country. This may seem like a success for the opposition in an election year, and it is not a success either. That’s the sad truth for Lankford, who is actually trying to do something.
For the overall good of the country, it is necessary to wait for Trump to be re-elected and for Republicans to gain credit for securing the border. This kind of thinking is how some of our leaders in Congress and elsewhere are supposedly going to make America great again.
The voting booth is an indicator of how this mentality can be changed.
— David C. Schueler, independent voter, Columbia, Illinois
Election Board Decision
Related “The board voted unanimously to keep Trump on the state ballot.” (Jan. 31): The Illinois State Board of Elections’ argument to allow Donald Trump’s inclusion in our state elections is based on the position that it “does not have the authority to decide whether he is disqualified.” “This prevents him from making decisions on complex constitutional issues.”
In fact, the US Constitution does not present the 14th Amendment as a “complex” issue; it simply says: “No person who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, who shall engage in insurrection or insurrection against it, or who shall give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof… shall hold any office.” .”
Paradoxically, the panel “followed the advice of a hearing officer, former Republican Kankakee County District Judge Clark Erickson, who said Trump had engaged in ‘insurrection.'” In fact, the board decided that a rebel could be allowed to remain in office. . The consistency of your logic escapes me.
The mission of the board, as I understand it, is that it recognizes the duty and obligation to the citizens of Illinois to set policy and ensure its implementation. The board fell well short of this task, appearing to lack understanding of the decision to keep an insurgent on the ballot.
Attorney Matt Piers, who represents those who object to Trump’s inclusion on the ballot, said there is “a highly disturbing record to assume that (Trump) knew that it was illegal to attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.” This statement follows the understanding of a group of lawyers, prosecutors, judges, citizens, civil rights groups, community leaders and reporters who knew that Trump had repeatedly made false statements, that his application contained false eligibility statements, and that he had knowingly called on rioters. We watched with glee as they threatened the Capitol and our political leaders and wreaked havoc on the Capitol grounds.
It is time to say stop to people who use such immoral, unlawful and insensitive behavior, which is completely against the public interest, to fuel their personal ambitions.
—Patrick Comer, Clarendon Hills
We don’t do what we say
What’s our problem? Do we have any dignity? Politicians? We all complain about politicians. They are running for duty. We vote for them. Many of us want our own facts: “alternative facts.” We talk about our ethical rules. Our principles. Our emotions. Then we vote for politicians who demonstrate the exact opposite. We say others do this too.
It was an escape, just like the primary school playground. We need to heed Polonius’ advice, “Be true to yourself.” We and the politicians are talking about problems that need to be fixed. Sometimes we are offered solutions to these problems, and then we vote against them. Rationalizations are touted, but the stench of selfish desires rises like dead fish. We cannot allow the other party to get a loan.
Politics versus government. We continue to place blame. Winning elections becomes the goal. This time Cassius: “Dear Brutus, the problem is not with the stars, but with ourselves.”
— William Burns, South Elgin